Getting it steadily filled in... Good, good. I would like to note that the Defiant - while interesting, it really wouldn't have a place in this game with only a turret for armament. Interesting concept, but not good for a game based on dogfighting and without player control of the turret. Even historically, this proved to be a flawed concept for "fighter" design. Same goes for the Blackburn Roc, which was easily eclipsed by its cousin, the Skua. This is probably why the P.92 was ultimately cancelled as well.

-- The current heavy line is composed primarily of two-seat twin-engine aircraft and circumvents the Meteor by way of the Westland P.1056 and Gloster P.228 (a Meteor analogue).

-- Preliminary work indicates that another heavy line composed of single-seat twin-engine fighters is possible from Tier IV to X (Gloster/Westland).

-- It is possible to use the Gloster Meteor development in jet form as early as Tier VII (as indicated by Meteor Mk.I premium), and as late as Tier X (as indicated by engines evaluated on Meteor airframe).

-- the decision to use Gloster Javelin as the Tier X in the current heavy line might suggest that the Meteor (or some form of it) is to be taken to Tier X, or that the line might transition to the English Electric Canberra (designer previously worked for Westland). Given the Meteor's use in a ground attack role it would not be unreasonable.

2. The missing Vampire/Venom/Vixens

-- Vampire/Venom/Vixen were also circumnavigated, so the question is where they fit in relative to Meteor, and whether or not a line of development is possible or necessary leading up to them at Tier VIII, IX, X.

-- There are essentially 2 ways to complete a De Havilland line -- on the basis of engines (Napier piston engines) or role (carrier-based strike fighter):

1) From an engine development point of view, the De Havilland jet engines (Goblin, Ghost) were developed by Frank Halford. Halford's career as an engine designer did not begin with jets, but rather began with De Havilland Gipsy, Gipsy Major, and continued with Napier & Sons in the development of Napier Rapier, Napier Dagger, Napier Sabre. The Sabre engine was most famously utilized in the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest, but Napier engines were also used by the De Havilland DH.77, the Martin-Baker MB.2, Martin Baker MB.3, and Blackburn Firebrand. (Martin-Baker MB.5 deviates by using a Rolls-Royce Griffon but it is a remarkable aircraft without a home if omitted on that point alone).

2) From the carrier-based-strike-fighter point-of-view, the line becomes more flexible about what it can include, but then it becomes very difficult to provide a "uniform feel" to the line. This method might include Fairey/Blackburn fighters and/or light bombers.

3) some combination of the above

-- If Vampire/Venom/Vixen are instead added as a minor branch, then it would make the most sense (in my opinion) as a minor branch coming from Hawker Tempest (based on the Napier engines also designed by Halford).

Cool Jellyfish! I don't know if an upgraded Venom would be tier X though cause the Vixen seems outside the scope of the game. Plus it had two engines so that would maybe put it back in HF ranking, but maybe it could work cause wikipedia said initally it had cannons. It would look cool as heck though. I say WG nerf it a little so that it fits into tier X as a fighter!!!

My thoughts is that the Gloster HF line would start from the Beaufighter, and do an either/or split at the P.1056 and the Meteor, both linking back up to the P.228. The Hornet would have the choice of going to the P.1056 or to the Vampire to finish the Dehavilland line. They could add the earlier fighters/heavy fighters later. I say they add these planes soon!!! I really want them! More than the Hurricanes to be honest.

Edited by S01836775, 11 August 2014 - 06:33 PM.

"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

Hopefully after all the work you've done the devs decide to make these lines! I agree with S02985y0974260847265 that having the DH Vampire come off the Hornet would probably require the least amount of work to get rolling on. Perhaps have the Typhoon and Hurricane come off of one of the existing lines too as a branch off to get them going soon - with the Typhoon possibly operating in a GA role?

-- flush rivet -- "Head is flush with surface into which it is countersunk." (Gunston, 270)

geodetic construction

-- "Methods of making curved space frames in which members follow geodesics along surface, each experiencing either tension or compression; resulting basketlike framework does not need stress-bearing covering." (Gunston, 293)

Westland Wyvern (12/1946) -- "... a near-elliptical planform low wing and a large fin and rudder of similar shape." (James, 285-286)

variable-incidence wings

-- variable incidence -- "Pivotally mounted so that angle of incidence can be altered. *wing: pivoted on transverse axis so that over full (large) range of flight AOA fuselage can remain more or less level, e.g. to improve pilot view on approach or permit short landing gear." (Gunston, 747)

Supermarine Type 322 (S.24/37)

Folland Fo.116 (E.28/40) -- (Buttler, 66)

laminar flow wings

-- "Fluid flow in which streamlines are invariant and maintain uniform separation, with perfect non-turbulent sliding between layers." (Gunston, 372)

Blackburn Firecrest (04/1947)

Handley Page slat

--

mid-wing configuration

--

gull wing

-- "One having pronounced dihedral from root to c15-20% semi-span, then little dihedral or even anhedral to tip." (Gunston, 306)

inverted gull wing

Blackburn Firecrest (04/1947)

rearward sweep wings

--

high aspect-ratio

-- aspect ratio -- "General measure of slenderness of aerofoil in plan. For constant-section rectangular surface, numerical ratio of span divided by chord, discounting effects due to presence of body or other parts of aircraft ..." (Gunston, 66)

"The split flap had been invented by engineer Tetsuo Noda of Mitsubishi in 1927. A patent was granted for this invention in 1928 but only in Japan, and not applied for elsewhere; consequently it was put to practical use several years later in the United States without restriction." (Mikesh, 174)

--

automatic flaps

--

Fowler Flaps

-- "Special form of slip flap that moves at first rearwards and then downwards along tracks, thus producing initial large increase in lift and at full deflection giving high lift and drag for landing." (Gunston, 276)

Blackburn Firecrest (04/1947) -- "Four Fowler high-lift flaps, with auxiliary flaps on the outer pair, imparted STOL characteristics for carrier work and take-off is said to have been of the order of 430ft in a 25-knot wind." (Jackson, 452)

Fairey-Youngman flaps

-- "Patented (Fairey) trailing-edge flap carried on struts below trailing edge and in addition to normal deflection also having a negative (usually -30-degrees) setting for use as dive brake." (Gunston, 788)

Fairey F.C.1 (cancelled 10/17/1939) -- ".. the most interesting feature was the flap system by which the resulting high take-off and approach/landing speeds were to be avoided // This Fairey-Youngman flap -- which was fitted in different forms to the Barracuda and the Firefly -- was designed to give high lift with low drag, or high lift with high drag. In effect, it provided an auxiliary aerofoil of about one-third of the chord of the wing. When retracted it formed an integral part of the under trailing edge; when lowered, an ingenious system of links first of all caused it to lie below and at a small angle relative to the wing to give high lift for take-off, and, when extended further, it moved rearwards while the angle increased to give a slotted-flap effect with maximum lift and adequate drag for final approach and landing ... The mechanism was simpler that that for the Fowler flap ... Figures quoted in Flight​ in [01/1939] gave maximum coefficients of lift as 1.45 for a plain wing, 1.9 for a wing with a split flap, and 2.45 for a wing with a Fairey-Youngman flap." (Taylor, 302); "At the end of 1938 Fairey were already well ahead with detail design ..." (Taylor, 299)

Fairey P.4/34 (01/1937) -- "The value of the P.4/34 did not end with its modification as a flying mock-up for the Fulmar. In 1940 it was decided to use K7555 to test some features of the design, to meet specification N.5/40, later to be the Firefly. It was fitted with retractable Fairey-Youngman flaps -- tested by the RAE in 1941 ..." (Taylor, 306)

Fairey Fulmar (01/1940) -- "... tested on the 2nd prototype P.4/34 [K7555], the Fulmar prototype, and also on production Fulmar N1858 (F.3750) ... [flight details] ...During a mock fight it was found that the P.4/34, with flaps set for take-off, could turn inside a Spitfire when both were making tight turns near the stall." (Taylor, 327-328)

Fairey Barracuda (12/1940) -- "It soon transpired that Admiralty interest centered more on the dive-bombing tactic than the torpedo attack ... Lobelle therefore took the opportunity to fit large Fairey-Youngman flaps -- large adjustable aerofoils attached to the wing trailing edge but below and aft of it; these could be used to increase lift for take-off, allow a steeper and slower approach to landing and, when set at a negative angle of incidence, allow a rapid rate of descent in a dive, while limiting the airspeed." (Mason, 340); "The most important and striking features were the Fairey-Youngman flaps which were, in effect, separate aerofoils mounted below and behind the trailing edge, inboard of the ailerons. In the neutral position they simply provided added wing area; for take-off they were lowered about 20 degrees to increase lift without excessive rag; and for landing they were lowered fully to provide maximum drag as well as lift. For dive-bombing, or for rapid descents in torpedo attacks, they were given a negative angle of 30 degrees. // The aerodynamic effect of the flaps in this position led to another curiosity of the Barracuda -- the high-set strut-braced tailplane ... [to prevent tailplane buffeting]." (Taylor, 314)

Fairey Firefly(12/1941) -- "... greatly improved low-speed handling and all-around maneuverability." (Winchester, 83); "... the trailing edge provided with patented Youngman flaps for use at low speeds and in cruise. Unlike the installation on the Barracuda, these flaps could be recessed into the wing. The pilot sat over the leading edge, with the observer behind the wing." (Gunston, 34-35); "Thanks partly to the Fairey-Youngman flaps -- which, unlike those of the Barracuda, could be fully retracted into the wing -- it also possessed the good low-speed handling qualities necessary for a carrier aircraft." (Taylor, 327); "As fitted to the Firefly, the flaps (operated by a lever on the left of the pilot) had 3 positions in addition to the fully-retracted, or 'housed' setting. These were: extended at near-zero incidence beneath the trailing-edge to improve low/medium-speed maneuverability; moved after and lowered to improve take-off; and moved further aft and rotated through a maximum angle for landing. The flaps extended from the ailerons to the center-line of the fuselage." (Taylor, 328)

​Fairey Spearfish (07/1945) -- "Fairey-Youngman area-increasing aerofoil flaps, in 4 spanwise sections, were used with, as in the Firefly, 4 settings, including 'housed', when the flaps were fully retracted into the wing. For later production aircraft it was proposed to increase the already considerable area of the flaps (about 70% of the actual wing-span) and to use spoilers, with small 'feeler' ailerons, for lateral control. While this method of control was being developed, the use of hydraulic servo ailerons [powered ailerons], with adequate manual control in case of power failure, was planned." (Taylor, 353)

Bristol Bulldog (05/1927, 01/1928+) -- "Frise-type ailerons, in which the hinges were set back from the rear spar fixings to provide a measure of aerodynamic balance, were fitted to the top wings only." (Andrews, 5)

-- "Ailerons arranged to droop about 15º when flaps are lowered to increase lift while preserving lateral control." (Gunston, 211)

powered ailerons

Blackburn Firebrand (02/1942) -- "To compensate for the torque of the Centaurus engine, the later marks had a grotesquely enlarged tail fin. Powered ailerons on the final version also helped." (Winchester, 283); "The TF.5A also had hydraulically-boosted aileron controls to increase the rate of roll at high speeds." (Buttler, 168)

J3llyfish, i just read all your stuff on the Hawker line, but I'm still trying to figure out how they would fly in game? My guess is really low altitude, great firepower, weak HP's, average manuverabilty pretty much everywhere, slow optimal airspeeds but good rate of climb.

What are you thinking though?

"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

J3llyfish, i just read all your stuff on the Hawker line, but I'm still trying to figure out how they would fly in game?

I don't have the information to substantiate a proper summary, and I don't like to guess, but I think it is fair to say that their strength relative to Bristol/Supermarine will be speed/climb. The information above substantiates that. I don't know what their weakness might be but I would be surprised to find it show up as lower durability or lower altitude. If altitude band is informed by engines, then I would expect that tiers I-IV and IX-X might be consistent with other British aircraft in-game. For the larger Napier engines it might be appropriate to look sideways to the Americans for a benchmark. The carrier-borne aircraft might have lower stall speeds (as would be desirable for landing on a carrier) but I can't substantiate that other than to say that it is logical. Overall I would expect it to be a very strong line with no glaring weakness.

Hmm. the addition of the Fantome as a tier IV prem kinda throws a wrench in the Fairey part of the Dehavilland line :(.

Well not necessarily. It might depend on how Vampire/Venom/Vixen are classified. If they are considered to be multirole then you may see Fairey Swordfish, Barracuda, Spearfish, etc. and maybe Blackburn to fill gaps if any.

It has been months since I have looked at it in detail but I remember being stymied trying to make progression clean. That and being unable to find any information to justify the current heavy line made me decide that they can and will do anything they want with the British line. I have not been able to find any reasonable explanation for Vampire/Venom and Meteor to be circumvented in favor of P.1056 and P.228, for example. Anyway, that's why this project is halted indefinitely.

Well not necessarily. It might depend on how Vampire/Venom/Vixen are classified. If they are considered to be multirole then you may see Fairey Swordfish, Barracuda, Spearfish, etc. and maybe Blackburn to fill gaps if any.

It has been months since I have looked at it in detail but I remember being stymied trying to make progression clean. That and being unable to find any information to justify the current heavy line made me decide that they can and will do anything they want with the British line. I have not been able to find any reasonable explanation for Vampire/Venom and Meteor to be circumvented in favor of P.1056 and P.228, for example. Anyway, that's why this project is halted indefinitely.

True. The brit HF tree has always puzzled me. It's not the most logical progression. The Dehavillands would have made sense, but they aren't HF's, and Meteors would have made sense if they added the Javelin as an alternate tier X. I have no idea why the P.1056 is even on the tree, although I like it in the game.

But that would be cool then if they did the Swordfish family as the early tech tree path. I guess I didn't think about them being multirole and not fighters.

"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

-- Vampire/Venom/Vixen were also circumnavigated, so the question is where they fit in relative to Meteor, and whether or not a line of development is possible or necessary leading up to them at Tier VIII, IX, X.

-- There are essentially 2 ways to complete a De Havilland line -- on the basis of engines (Napier piston engines) or role (carrier-based strike fighter):

1) From an engine development point of view, the De Havilland jet engines (Goblin, Ghost) were developed by Frank Halford. Halford's career as an engine designer did not begin with jets, but rather began with De Havilland Gipsy, Gipsy Major, and continued with Napier & Sons in the development of Napier Rapier, Napier Dagger, Napier Sabre. The Sabre engine was most famously utilized in the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest, but Napier engines were also used by the De Havilland DH.77, the Martin-Baker MB.2, Martin Baker MB.3, and Blackburn Firebrand. (Martin-Baker MB.5 deviates by using a Rolls-Royce Griffon but it is a remarkable aircraft without a home if omitted on that point alone).

2) From the carrier-based-strike-fighter point-of-view, the line becomes more flexible about what it can include, but then it becomes very difficult to provide a "uniform feel" to the line. This method might include Fairey/Blackburn fighters and/or light bombers.

3) some combination of the above

-- If Vampire/Venom/Vixen are instead added as a minor branch, then it would make the most sense (in my opinion) as a minor branch coming from Hawker Tempest (based on the Napier engines also designed by Halford).

Polish designers participate in development of the Vampire, Venom, and Vixen for United Kingdom -- could this help to explain the missing De Havilland jets?